Subject: The Hobbit
Posted by: Daaanieeel
Date: Aug 15 12
Is there anyone else as excited for these three films as I am? I'm a massive fan of Tolkien's work and thought Peter Jackson did a really great job of portraying "The Lord of the Rings". I've been following all the news on the films and cannot wait to see it.
Posted by: Daaanieeel
Date: Aug 15 12
Is there anyone else as excited for these three films as I am? I'm a massive fan of Tolkien's work and thought Peter Jackson did a really great job of portraying "The Lord of the Rings". I've been following all the news on the films and cannot wait to see it.
33 replies. On page 1 of 2 pages. 1 2
boxjaw 
|
I'm real excited about the film(s). I loved the trilogy. The only thing that seems to be cloying to me is I don't feel that we need three films to tell the story. I hope it doesn't get too padded. Maybe, maybe two films but not three. Reply #1. Aug 15 12, 8:16 AM |
Mariamir
|
I am! I can't wait! I agree that three films is a little too long, and I'm worried that they'll change the story like what they did to Faramir. (Sorry, had to slip that in, lol.) But, yes, I am SO excited! Reply #2. Aug 16 12, 7:58 AM |
Daaanieeel
|
I have to agree with you guys on the trilogy, the whole thing is a bit unnecessary and seems to be a cash ploy more than anything else. I'd prefer just seeing it in one film, to be honest. But my view has softened a bit after I read this article: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08/03/60354-greenbooks-guest-post-in-defense-of-a-hobbit-trilogy/ Reply #3. Aug 16 12, 8:35 AM |
eyhung
|
Count me in as a person who thinks padding to three movies is a cash grab. And this from the same people who murdered the character known as Faramir. Two movies seems right given the extra material they're filming. Reply #4. Aug 16 12, 9:19 AM |
| boxjaw
|
We, who love the stories of which we speak, forget that one of the most powerful yet biggest overlook in the LOTR movies is Tom. I agree about Faramir. But Tom Bombadil was the biggest loss for those who don't know the canon. Reply #5. Aug 16 12, 9:31 AM |
| boxjaw
|
I feel that if it took me three wonderful days at my leisure to read 'The Hobbit', and a little less than two weeks or so (also at my leisure) to read 'The Lord of the Rings'. That's a good general ratio for the time involved in the films, I think. Why would I want to watch a trilogy film about one book? The folks that have no understanding of that book would probably feel: What's the big deal? The folks that know the book would think: Too much. Jackson needs to save energy for "The Silmarillion" Reply #6. Aug 16 12, 9:48 AM |
| Mariamir
|
Oh yes, there was Tom Bombadil. And the Scouring of the Shire. The important part when you realise that Hobbits CAN do deeds without Gandalf, Men, or Gollum about. Daaanieeel (Can I shorten it to Daniel? It is a fingerful - I mean mouthful), that article did make me SLIGHTLY more sympathetic to them...but they might as well have done The Silmarillon as a film instead of adding to the Hobbit. Reply #7. Aug 17 12, 12:34 AM |
| Daaanieeel
|
Shorten it to Daniel, Dan, D, anything. :) I honestly have no idea why I chose my username. I agree, the biggest loss in all the LOTR films was Tom. He was one of my absolute favourite characters. No idea why they decided to leave him out. And the Scouring of the Shire, that was pretty major as well. Faramir in general annoyed me as well, not just his death. In the books the Ring barely tempted him, in the movie he actually took the Hobbits to Gondor! Another thing I hated was how much focus there was on Arwen and Aragorn's romance. I guess it was done to draw different types of people in to the film and I could tolerate it, but I found it a bit necessary. Rant over. Reply #8. Aug 17 12, 4:01 AM |
| Mariamir
|
I think that the focus on Arwen and Aragorn was not only to be able to add more women specifically Arwen scenes (in the books there are practically none) but also to add some romance into the films. Apparently films nowadays need to have some, or something. Although it may have been unnecessary, I would prefer a bit more on Faramir and Eowyn; after all, they had a whole section of a chapter dedicated to them. Lol, ok. D. That's interesting. D. D. D. hmmm.... Reply #9. Aug 17 12, 4:40 AM |
kaddarsgirl
|
I was really excited for "The Hobbit" when I thought it was only one movie. There's no way I'm going to sit through 3 movies to see the story, and there is no way I'm going to pay to watch all 3. That's just ridiculous. I can read the book in less time than it would take to watch the movies! Oh well. "The Hobbit" was my favorite book of the series too...read it in 8th grade. Reply #10. Aug 17 12, 7:45 PM |
| Daaanieeel
|
Just noticed I said "Faramir's death". No idea what I was thinking. I think I confused Denethor with Faramir. *Facepalm* But still, Faramir annoyed me. Denethor was done well. Reply #11. Aug 25 12, 11:14 AM |
| Mariamir
|
I figured what you meant by that was his "death" at the hands of PJ. :-P Guess I was wrong, but I prefer that way of thinking. And PJ DOES owe him a resurrection. Reply #12. Aug 25 12, 6:17 PM |
| Daaanieeel
|
Hehehe... Err, yes, that's exactly what I meant. ;) Reply #13. Aug 25 12, 11:10 PM |
Cupra
|
I didn't realise it was in three parts. How annoying. Reply #14. Aug 27 12, 2:39 PM |
johnnycat777
|
Looking forward to it. Can't wait. Reply #15. Sep 04 12, 10:41 AM |
| Daaanieeel
|
The new trailer for "An Unexpected Journey" has been released, and it is awesome. See it (and the older one) here: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/ Also, with the announcement of the trilogy earlier on, the new titled have been announced. The first film will still be called "An Unexpected Journey". The second film will be titled "The Desolation of Smaug" and the third film "There and Back Again". Reply #16. Sep 19 12, 8:46 AM |
| eyhung
|
Well, I'll still go watch it. I'm just not expecting another Lord of the Rings. Regarding the cutting of Tom Bombadil, I actually thought it was a good decision. It's hard for non-fans to understand why he's important. The Scouring is another cut which I reluctantly support. People were complaining already about how long it took between the fall of Sauron and the ending. Adding another conflict would be an anti-climax. Important to Tolkien's themes, yes, but not exactly great for a movie. Reply #17. Sep 19 12, 11:36 AM |
CmdrK
|
If Cate Blanchett is in all three, I'll be there! :) I'll probably be there anyway. I don't see how they can stretch the book to three films but my wife and I like to go to the movies and with the junk that passes for cinema nowadays, we only go once a year, or less. Reply #18. Sep 19 12, 1:35 PM |
nautilator
|
It's great that they're finally making it, but count me skeptical about 3 movies. I'll be waiting and see what other people think before watching it. Reply #19. Sep 20 12, 11:46 AM |
Gil_Galad
|
3 movies sounds like they'll add a bunch of controversial scenes. 2 movies would've been best, but still... better than none. Reply #20. Oct 21 12, 11:48 AM |
33 replies. On page 1 of 2 pages. 1 2
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: